Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.
"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." -A.E. van Vogt
He's a she.
Yeah, I just found that out. I'd been reading chunks of the ruling and didn't bother to see who wrote that mess.
It's been apparent for awhile now that many judges just make this stuff up as they go. They pull their opinions out of thin air filtered through their politics just like the rest of us. I'm reminded of those news reports from the Third World where the reporter looks all concerned and says something like. "Other than the military Diane, most people here have no faith in the government or any of it's institutions."The only thing unusual about these rifles is the hoops people will jump through to obtain them. Especially in places like Maryland and California.
Hey, LEOs and retired LEOs can still own the 30 round magazines and the AR-15s, so the law is OK, right?Because they are different than you or me, in that they are better and more deserving of constitutional protection.I'd challenge the law under "equal protection" basis next and see where that goes.
And since Obama's election, it is quite possible they most popular rifle style in the country.
The problem seems to be (in part) that many of the implements involved have complex names:semiautomatic pistol aka 'automatic'of (for the media) Glock,orsemiautomatic, military-styled rifle vs. 'assault weapon'.The media likes to dumb things down to their level.gfa
Interesting legal argument. The ghosts of Hammurabi, Justinian, Coke and Blackstone must be looking on, nodding sagely and saying, "How'd we miss THAT concept???"
Well, they HAVE to be unusual because none of the judge's friends owns one!
The AR is a very unusual looking rifle... if your basis for comparison is... maybe a musket.Or a bolt action hunting rifle. Maybe. But I'm voting for Musket - thats all the founders were intending the rabble have access to. Muskets - after all. ;)
Interesting.Methinks the second amendment protects a standard militia issue burst-fire M-4 more than is does Uncle Fudd's Remchester.
I beleive the judge is ruling from the concept that rights only exist as allowed and interepeted by the courts. The judge is not intrerested in all the civil rights, tough for the rest of the citizens.
The sheer amount of deliberate obtuseness and purposeful evasion of reality in that opinion is most impressive.On the upside, it's really a nice and ripe time for an appeal of such a shockingly bad decision.
"I think it's safe to say that "available at Walmart" is practically the opposite of "unusual"."[/analysis]
RE: what Sidheshooter (sp?) said.Good one,Tam.Also,RE: Aaron,'deliberate obtuseness',excellent!!I want to work that into a conversation soon.
I believe that the word for "deliberate obtuseness" is "obfuscation".
Judge, your gavel - as representative of authority - likely is more closely related to a "war" hatchet than to a hammer and also being far more unusual than even hatchets or hammers thus should be banned. . Oh my, any weapon designed with at least some thought given to its possible marketing as a weapon for military "offensive" use us eligible for a ban. I guess helmets, and possibly boots, are not considered weapons so are OK. But I cannot think of any knife or firearm that is not at least derived from a weapon for which [bulk] sale to government/military was a consideration.
Pretty sure I heard Alan Gura start laughing.
I liked the part in which she opined that the semiauto version might be more deadly than the full auto. Or blathering about how many cops have been killed by AR-15s. My term for this is "aggressive ignorance." She really, really, doesn't want to know more about this subject than what Maryland's brief lies about.My wife works for another judge in that District Court, and likes her as a person. She was quite upset with the language I used to describe how I felt about this opinion and the tool that wrote it.
Post a Comment